tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post985262023265017871..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Sober: Religion Isn’t Science, Except When it IsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger187125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1741094424011482242011-07-08T15:34:00.256-07:002011-07-08T15:34:00.256-07:00So like all cowardly Creationists, when called on ...So like all cowardly Creationists, when called on his blustering BS <b>Gary can't produce.</b> And like all cowardly creationists, Gary tosses a stink bomb to cover his unceremonious and panicked flight towards the door.<br /><br />Don't let the "my probability calculation that I can't show disprove evolution" door hit you in the cheeks on the way out.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87836241650461159102011-07-08T15:32:49.710-07:002011-07-08T15:32:49.710-07:00Gary to English Translation:
"No longer inte...<b>Gary to English Translation:</b><br /><br />"No longer interested in being EMBARRASSED by people calling my bluff on my idiotic claims. Of course I can't provide all those probability calculations I crowed about - are you kidding? I couldn't answer a scientific question if my life depended on it. All I do is bluster and bloviate and regurgitate this IDiot crap I don't understand just to make myself feel better. It's what we Creationist do."<br /><br />Bye Gary. Tell Jeebus I said "hi".Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35182356970490207712011-07-08T15:21:56.929-07:002011-07-08T15:21:56.929-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86289538854618182382011-07-08T15:13:15.113-07:002011-07-08T15:13:15.113-07:00No longer interested in ANYTHING at all that stumb...No longer interested in ANYTHING at all that stumbles out of your illogical, unreasonable, denial of reality and badly educated little mind. <br /><br />Oops, sorry I forgot. In Darwinism all is determined and you, poor fellow, are merely "dancing to your DNA" since there is no free will. LOL<br /><br />Oh, btw, I'll be using examples from these attempted discussions with you on my blog to demonstrate to all readers just how imbecilic religious Darwinian Dogmatists really are in the face of facts. Even those coming from their own people.<br /><br />FAIL<br />End of File for you ThornyGary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61840462473428623082011-07-08T14:56:05.759-07:002011-07-08T14:56:05.759-07:00Gary said...
T: "When will you be answering ...<i>Gary said...<br /><br />T: "When will you be answering those questions on your claimed "super intelligence"?"<br /><br />I did. As usual you missed it.</i><br /><br />I say you are lying. prove me wrong by posting a link to the answers. Here are the questions again:<br /><br /><i>T: "What super intellect would that be? Where did the super intellect come from? When was this design and manufacture done, and where, and how?"<br /><br />Gary: Oh brother. He we go again with the inane Darwinian "who designed the designer" nonsense.</i><br /><br />If you bothered to answer even once we wouldn't have to keep asking. But you never answer, only flap those gums and run away.<br /><br /><i>I proved, by using research done by a Darwinian fundamentalist, that your whole view of biological information is pure crap. </i><br /><br />Interesting, since you've yet to give a rigorous definition of 'biological information' or a way to quantify it despite being asked dozens of times.<br /><br />You forgot to provide your probability calculations for this too<br /><br /><i>For ex., the probabilities of just getting a 40 protein part biological machine together, by chance + the laws of chemistry, is so astronomically low that it is ludicrous to believe that this is what really happened hundreds of thousands of times over.</i><br /><br />How about those calculations Gary? Should be easy for you since you claim you already finished and drew conclusions from them. Why can't you just C&P them here? You have no problem C&Ping all sorts of other IDiot crap.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27536421096591008162011-07-08T11:21:33.515-07:002011-07-08T11:21:33.515-07:00The worst thorno is that I was actually on the ver...The worst thorno is that I was actually on the verge of suggesting we "bury the hatchet" and try to be more civil. <br /><br />I even apologize for some of my nastier insults.<br />I'll leave that at that.<br /><br />But look at yourself here!<br />Sad but too bad. It's still a waste of effort with the likes of you.<br /><br />Others, more open minded and intelligent, may understand and wake up from their long slumber in Darwinian foolishness and smell the rotting hypothesis of materialisms origins myth.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12031623202179851652011-07-08T11:12:18.706-07:002011-07-08T11:12:18.706-07:00Thorton is deaf to any truth whatsoever.
Sorry o...Thorton is deaf to any truth whatsoever. <br /><br />Sorry old boy but CY received nothing but grace and politeness from me. It's her web site.<br /><br />I reserve the insults for people like you who spend more time insulting the author of this blog and everyone else disagreeing with you, than doing anything useful. <br /><br />You reap what you sow.<br /><br /><i>"I'll take her word over yours any day, yappy little puppy."</i><br /><br />And which word is that?<br />You don't even know what you're talking about.<br /><br />You merely dismiss Yockey's research altogether in order to desperately hang on to your religious dogma.<br /><br /><i>"You're trying to use as evidence for ID the work of a man who directly say it does not support ID."</i><br /><br />You can't read can you.<br />What I really said was that <b>his work proves YOU WRONG on the whole information question</b>. <br /><br />Yockey himself says you are wrong.<br /><i>Whether he remains a stringent Darwinist or not is entirely irrelevant to the point</i>.<br /><br />For petes sake thorny how did you ever get a diploma with such terrible reading analysis skills?!<br /><br /><i>"When will you be answering those questions on your claimed "super intelligence"?"</i><br /><br />I did. As usual you missed it.<br /><br /><i>"What super intellect would that be? Where did the super intellect come from? When was this design and manufacture done, and where, and how?"</i><br /><br />Oh brother. He we go again with the inane Darwinian "who designed the designer" nonsense.<br /><br />Are there no Darwinists with a proper education here or what? <br />None of you ever studied logic or critical thinking? <br />None of you can analyze a simple proposition without shooting yourselves in the foot?<br />None know of anything at all of information? <br /><br />Get real before you lose it entirely.<br /><br />"You seem to be all mouth and no action here little puppy"<br /><br />This little puppy is so far beyond your 100 or less IQ it isn't funny. <br /><br />I proved, by using research done by a Darwinian fundamentalist, that your whole view of biological information is pure crap. <br /><br />When will you admit your error and get back to the point? All your bluster and frustrated howlings are only making you look dumber than you are.<br /><br />You are incapable of admitting an error. Error, especially errors of the magnitude of your error on the nature of biological information, implies failure of the dogma to correspond to reality. <br /><br />And that scares the living shit out of you.<br /><br />But <b>reality is something Dawinian fundamentalist fanatics like you know little of</b>. <br /><br />For it is in fact you with your magical theory of <b>frogs to princes by the kiss of copy errors and mere filtering, that are living in a fairy tale wonderland worthy of Disney</b>.<br /><br /><b>FAIL</b><br />Biological information, as one of your own states, is mathematically identical to that of human language, computer programs and sign symbols.<br /><br /><b>The only known source of such information is intelligence</b>Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15327785992580140792011-07-08T09:26:58.167-07:002011-07-08T09:26:58.167-07:00Thorton:"You left out the third: Nature did i...Thorton:"You left out the third: Nature did it ".<br /><br />Nature. Could you introduce me this girl?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65698023091456714082011-07-07T20:28:51.414-07:002011-07-07T20:28:51.414-07:00Gary said...
Thorton said...
" Hey ...<i>Gary said...<br /><br /> Thorton said...<br /><br /> " Hey Gary, what do you think about this from Cynthia Yockey, Hubert Yockey's daughter, posted on their web site? Sure makes your quote-mining of him to support ID look pretty silly, eh?"<br /><br /> A few points here thorto:<br /><br /> 1) I conversed with Miz Yockey about some her statements by e-mail (years ago), pointing out where she was wrong. She refused to listen, being a dogmatic Darwinist herself - what a surprise.</i><br /><br />LOL! I can imaging how that went<br /><br />Gary: "You stupid ignorant Darweener! Your father is an IDist only he doesn't know it! Here's a Jack Chick tract that PROVES GAWD I mean ID is a fact!!"<br /><br />CY: "Go pound sand"<br /><br />I'll take her word over yours any day, yappy little puppy.<br /><br /><i>3) The fact that Yockey himself still refuses to follow the evidence where it leads and now claims in the standard atheist Darwinist manner, "no one will ever know where DNA came from or how life originated."</i><br /><br />That's hilarious. You're trying to use as evidence for ID the work of a man who directly say it does not support ID. Talk about living in your own little fantasy puppy world.<br /><br />When will you be answering those questions on your claimed "super intelligence"?<br /><br /><b>What super intellect would that be? Where did the super intellect come from? When was this design and manufacture done, and where, and how?</b><br /><br />You seem to be all mouth and no action here little puppy.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17814081174687024842011-07-07T19:58:02.643-07:002011-07-07T19:58:02.643-07:00Blas:
You're wasting time with thorn.
His d...Blas: <br /><br />You're wasting time with thorn. <br />His devout worship of the religious dogma of materialism supersedes his ability to accept any truth that contradicts it.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54678889092719209502011-07-07T19:55:11.437-07:002011-07-07T19:55:11.437-07:00Thorton said...
" Hey Gary, what do you t...Thorton said...<br /><i><br />" Hey Gary, what do you think about this from Cynthia Yockey, Hubert Yockey's daughter, posted on their web site? Sure makes your quote-mining of him to support ID look pretty silly, eh?"</i><br /><br />A few points here thorto:<br /><br />1) I conversed with Miz Yockey about some her statements by e-mail (years ago), pointing out where she was wrong. She refused to listen, being a dogmatic Darwinist herself - what a surprise.<br /><br />And oh, you're clearly too blind to realize that what his daughter states has nothing whatsoever to do with her fathers research findings.<br /><br />She may howl at the moon naked every lunar eclipse for all I care. That would change nothing of the facts of bona fide prescriptive information encoded in DNA.<br /><br />You see, unfortunately for you and the whole of Darwinism, Yockey is nevertheless correct. <br /><br />As stated, it isn't even debatable. It's a hard fact.<br /><br />2) You are way off, so far off it ought to be staring you in the face and it is, but your religious dogma impedes your sight.<br /><br />You're merely trying, by this oh so standard artifice of deceit -which is used ubiquitously by your kind- to squirm out of Yockey's findings and have to admit you're wrong and God forbid! revise your position in light of facts.<br /><br />His findings demolish your views.<br /><br />3) The fact that Yockey himself still refuses to follow the evidence where it leads and now claims in the standard atheist Darwinist manner, "no one will ever know where DNA came from or how life originated."<br /><br />Wow, What science! Religious materialism dogma ruins you all.<br /><br />Like all dogmatic, blind and obstinate Darwinists he WILL not admit, in spite of his own research proving Darwin wrong, that an intelligence NECESSARILY created the DNA code.<br /><br />So, you have to resort to imbecilic and vain accusations of quote mining - the Darwhiners favorite escape tactic - in lack of any real argument.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75876378780013888302011-07-07T19:49:55.730-07:002011-07-07T19:49:55.730-07:00Eugen said...
Blas, Thorton
AA to codon ...<i>Eugen said...<br /><br /> Blas, Thorton<br /><br /> AA to codon mapping is well preserved across species and time from what I read. ID supporters who do not accept common descent should watch here. Seems to be core part of the system.</i><br /><br />Yep.<br /><br /> <i> There are two possibilities:<br /><br /> 1.If nature mapped AA to codons it was very clever and foresightful(did I invent the word?)<br /><br /> 2.If Creator did it He was just a smart designer. Do it once-do it good,keep it. I would do it that way.</i><br /><br />You left out the third: Nature did it and the mapping was optimized over time by an iterative process of naturally occurring variations filtered by some sort of selection.<br /><br />I wonder if anyone has ever observed a process like that working in nature before? ;)Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52490156165735152432011-07-07T18:37:03.193-07:002011-07-07T18:37:03.193-07:00Blas, Thorton
AA to codon mapping is well preserv...Blas, Thorton<br /><br />AA to codon mapping is well preserved across species and time from what I read. ID supporters who do not accept common descent should watch here.<br />Seems to be core part of the system.<br /><br />There are two possibilities:<br /><br />1.If nature mapped AA to codons it was very clever and foresightful(did I invent the word?)<br /><br />2.If Creator did it He was just a smart designer. Do it once-do it good,keep it. I would do it that way.<br /><br />There is a twist as always. I see something very modern in the map, something we humans use every day.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75438537091313009572011-07-07T18:02:28.113-07:002011-07-07T18:02:28.113-07:00Blas said...
Thorton:"If the only thing ...<i>Blas said...<br /><br /> Thorton:"If the only thing in the universe that will allow DNA to transform into proteins are non-arbitrary specific molecules that rely on the laws of chemistry and physics to react, then you don't have an abstract code."<br /><br /> That is wrong, we can read the code, when is writed the can be understood what it means, we also can build a protein sintetizer that can read the code and add the correct aminoacid to the change. To work as a machine protein builder by his own the code need the cell machinery as the binary code need to be in the propper support to make some tasks.</i><br /><br />You means science understands the chemistry well enough to know how certain reaction will proceed. It's still not an abstract code, no matter how much ID spin you try and put on it.<br /><br /><i>We already discuss this before.</i><br /><br />You mean you made the same unsupported IDiot claims before. Ho hum.<br /><br />So why <b>did</b> you lie about what your university taught concerning evolution? Were you trying to score points with the other IDCers here?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33847380255099159692011-07-07T17:53:04.976-07:002011-07-07T17:53:04.976-07:00Thorton:"If the only thing in the universe th...Thorton:"If the only thing in the universe that will allow DNA to transform into proteins are non-arbitrary specific molecules that rely on the laws of chemistry and physics to react, then you don't have an abstract code."<br /><br />That is wrong, we can read the code, when is writed the can be understood what it means, we also can build a protein sintetizer that can read the code and add the correct aminoacid to the change. To work as a machine protein builder by his own the code need the cell machinery as the binary code need to be in the propper support to make some tasks.<br />We already discuss this before.<br />You are confusing the DNA molecule with the code itself. The code is the relation between the codons and the aminoacids. And is not of chemical nature. A pairs con T because of the chemistry of the DNA molecule but there is no relation between Leu and CUU.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86341282546841715402011-07-07T16:40:35.062-07:002011-07-07T16:40:35.062-07:00Blas said...
If you want your computer work, the...<i>Blas said...<br /><br /> If you want your computer work, the binary code needs to translated in positive or negative electric charges</i><br /><br />Wrong. Babbage's 'difference engine' did binary processing but didn't use electricity. You could even run binary code on a big fingered powered abacus if you had to.<br /><br />The <b>definition</b> of abstract code is that you use arbitrary symbols and arbitrary media to carry your message.<br /><br />If the only thing in the universe that will allow DNA to transform into proteins are non-arbitrary specific molecules that rely on the laws of chemistry and physics to react, then you don't have an abstract code.<br /><br />Now why did you lie about what your university taught concerning evolution?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80685261735011287942011-07-07T15:59:31.766-07:002011-07-07T15:59:31.766-07:00Thorton:"Fine. You claim DNA is an abstract c...Thorton:"Fine. You claim DNA is an abstract code, that means it can use any arbitrary materials for the symbols and get the same results. Make us a genome out of Lego, show us the Lego proteins it produces. Maybe the Origin-of-Life folks will let you use their garage, er, lab."<br /><br />The need of a special platform in order to get a specific result from a code do not make it non abstract. If you want your computer work, the binary code needs to translated in positive or negative electric charges.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27335771754844577302011-07-07T12:54:27.011-07:002011-07-07T12:54:27.011-07:00Hey Gary, what do you think about this from Cynthi...Hey Gary, what do you think about this from Cynthia Yockey, Hubert Yockey's daughter, posted on their web site?<br /><br /><b>Cynthia Yockey: "This post is written by Cynthia Yockey. The first thing I want noted about my father is that he is not in any way, shape or form a Creationist. He does not support Intelligent Design. He supports Darwin’s theory of evolution and points out that it is one of the best-supported theories in science."</b><br /><br /><a href="http://www.hubertpyockey.com/hpyblog/" rel="nofollow">Hubert P. Yockey source</a><br /><br />Sure makes your quote-mining of him to support ID look pretty silly, eh?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65735493038494106132011-07-07T12:47:52.456-07:002011-07-07T12:47:52.456-07:00Blas said...
Here we go again. We already dis...<i>Blas said...<br /><br /> Here we go again. We already discuss this a few posts ago. Genetic code is code, is that biologist do not sequence proteins anymore, they read the DNA/RNA and get the sequence of the protein.</i><br /><br />Blas, why did you lie about what your university taught regarding evolution?<br /><br />Does your religion tell you that it's OK to lie?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7062508393036452512011-07-07T12:42:19.905-07:002011-07-07T12:42:19.905-07:00Gary the yappy little puppy said...
For ex., ...<i>Gary the yappy little puppy said...<br /><br /> For ex., the probabilities of just getting a 40 protein part biological machine together, by chance + the laws of chemistry, is so astronomically low that it is ludicrous to believe that this is what really happened hundreds of thousands of times over.</i><br /><br />Then <b>show us your calculations.</b> Be sure to list and justify any assumptions you make.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16812165815039414622011-07-07T12:39:31.986-07:002011-07-07T12:39:31.986-07:00Gary the yappy little puppy said...
Besides n...<i>Gary the yappy little puppy said...<br /><br /> Besides not answering half the questions I posed, the ones you do attempt to answer you have the WRONG answers!!</i><br /><br />You mean like how you answered all those questions about your 'super intellect' claims?<br /><br /><b>What super intellect would that be yappy puppy? Where did the super intellect come from? When was this design and manufacture done, and where, and how? </b><br /><br /><i>How many more times do Darwinian ignoramuses need to be corrected on this utterly false notion that the language of DNA, the DNA CODE, is not an analogy to abstract code but it IS abstract code just as much as any human language or computer code is.</i><br /><br />Fine. You claim DNA is an abstract code, that means it can use any arbitrary materials for the symbols and get the same results. Make us a genome out of Lego, show us the Lego proteins it produces. Maybe the Origin-of-Life folks will let you use their garage, er, lab.<br /><br /><i>Yockey rigorously demonstrated that DNA code processing is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering</i><br /><br />No, Yockey offered his opinion, an opinion not shared by the vast majority of geneticists and biologists.<br /><br />Bottom line is - you can C&P ridiculous claims from IDiot sites all day long, but you'll never understand or be able to defend it.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76793749097804610482011-07-07T12:34:26.101-07:002011-07-07T12:34:26.101-07:00Another essay Darwinists seriously need to read is...Another essay Darwinists seriously need to read is <a href="http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a><br /><br />Consensus "science" isn't science. But that's what Darwinists rely on more than anything else, whether they realize it or not. <br /><br />And what is "consensus science" really? <br />In others terms its known as <i><b>argumentum ad populum</b></i>Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85296094916546084972011-07-07T12:26:24.214-07:002011-07-07T12:26:24.214-07:00"Chance is the simplest explanation only so l..."Chance is the simplest explanation only so long as you are willing to discount statistical probability as a complicating factor."<br /><br />This is true, including for the Darwinian evolution hypothesis - (doesn't really make it up to being a valid scientific theory).<br /><br />Statistical mechanics dictates that probabilities can be calculated for any structural composite mechanism or machine.<br /><br />For ex., the probabilities of just getting a 40 protein part biological machine together, by chance + the laws of chemistry, is so astronomically low that it is ludicrous to believe that this is what really happened hundreds of thousands of times over.<br /><br />Moreover, structural components of ANY structure must meet the stringent demands of physics or they will break, distort or shear due to high mechanical stresses in their own movements.<br /><br />Then combinatorial dependencies (another unknown for Darwinians) come into the game: <br />One part must fit to the other connected part. Parts must be of the correct size, strength, form, elasticity, pliability, hardness, softness etc etc. - the end result being a combinatorial mass of inter-dependent pieces.<br /><br />Consider, for example, the more than 300 know nano bio machines running (often concurrently and interactively) in the yeast genome. <br />It becomes utterly insurmountable for any stochastic process to have accomplished the creation and assembly of such and that given ANY amount of time!<br /><br /><b>Darwinism is failed hypothesis. </b><br /><br />How do we know this? <br /><br /><b>Because statistical mechanics, probability theory, the laws of physics and chemistry, the laws of information and the laws of entropy say so.</b><br /><br />IDist(s) have and will continue to put all of this together, publish it hope more than less thinkers, at least, will understand. <br /><br />And then of course, they will be punished by the scientific community of irate Darwinistas, whose minds are still on hold - stuck in their religious dogma, but who happen to run the whole industry and academia.<br /><br /><b>"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the 'papacy' (for which read, perhaps, the Royal Society or the Royal College of Physicians), or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our trade." </b>(Gould, D.W., "Letting poetry loose in the laboratory," New Scientist, 29 August 1992, p.51)<br /><br />We see this demonstrated every day right here.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46440989950799284912011-07-07T12:12:03.789-07:002011-07-07T12:12:03.789-07:00Thorton:"IDiots rely on arguments based on an...Thorton:"IDiots rely on arguments based on an equivocation between the two definitions. They are fond of confusing the abstract symbols (A, C, G, T, U) created by science to record the chemical reactions with the molecules of the chemical reactions themselves. Confusing the map with the territory as it were."<br /><br />Here we go again. We already discuss this a few posts ago. Genetic code is code, is that biologist do not sequence proteins anymore, they read the DNA/RNA and get the sequence of the protein.<br />You are suggesting that the linkage between the aminoacids and the codon is a chemical linkage, like an enzyme an his substrate. But unfortunatly for darwinist, it is not the case. There is no chemical reason for the codification of Leu as CUU and CCU for Pro.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35803181932881505252011-07-07T12:03:01.533-07:002011-07-07T12:03:01.533-07:00Well thorno, as predicted you've just shot you...Well thorno, as predicted you've just shot your stupid head off because you don't have a bloody clue what you're talking about.<br /><br />Besides not answering half the questions I posed, the ones you do attempt to answer you have the WRONG answers!!<br /><br />How many more times do Darwinian ignoramuses need to be corrected on this utterly false notion that the language of DNA, the DNA CODE, is not an analogy to abstract code but it IS abstract code just as much as any human language or computer code is.<br /><br />The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. <br /><br />Yockey rigorously demonstrated that DNA code processing is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. <br /><br />Sorry Darwinistas but <i>this is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:</i> <br /><br /><b>“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and <i>are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies</i>.”</b> (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)<br /><br /><b>"The information content of amino acid sequences cannot increase until a genetic code with an adapter function has appeared. Nothing which even vaguely resembles a code exists in the physio-chemical world. One must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of the origin of life exists at present."</b><br />- Hubert Yockey, “Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 91 (1981)<br /><br />Yockey stated, <b>“It is important to understand that <i>we are not reasoning by analogy</i>. The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.”</b><br /><br />Why do think linguist software, linguistic algorithms are used in searching DNA strings?<br /><br />Darwinism utterly fails at the information level alone - unless of course you are going to claim guided, planned on purpose evolution such as theistic or deistic evolution.<br /><br />Darwinism has no valid explanation for the informational structure of life. None, zilch, nada.<br /><br />As Berlinski notes: <br />"It is an algorithm that lies at the humming heart of life, ferrying information from one set of symbols (the nucleic acids) to another (the proteins). An algorithm? How else to describe the intricacy of transcription, translation, and replication than by an appeal to an algorithm? For that matter, what else to call the quantity stored in the macromolecules than information?<br />...<br />Using very simple counting arguments, Hubert Yockey has concluded that an ancient protein such as "cytochrome c" could be expected to arise by chance only once in 10<44> trials. The image of an indefatigable but hopelessly muddled universe trying throughout all eternity to create a single biological molecule is very sobering. It is this image that, no doubt, accounted for Francis Crick's suggestion that life did not originate on earth at all, but was sent here from outer space, a wonderful example of an intellectual operation known generally as fog displacement."<br />- David Berlinski - The End of Materialist Science <br /><br /><br />Get over it, this isn't going away.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.com